Response to "Edward Seidensticker on Nagai Kafu and Kawabata Yasunari"

 Edward Seidensticker's beliefs regarding translation between English and Japanese was very insightful. The one part that stuck out to me personally was the bit about every translation choice is "inadequate". I do believe that there are a lot of "good" translations between the two languages, but obviously some details and nuances are lost in the translation. This end result with lost context is what I consider Edward Seidensticker to be describing as "inadequate". Any translation is just an interpretation on what the original was trying to convey, and the original is often times the best way of conveying whatever it may be. It is mentioned as well that translations can result in more clearer sentences in terms of them potentially being less vague as a result of the translator bringing out the deeper meaning to produce a coherent sentence in English. However, I believe that, although it may be "better" sentences in the sense that they are more understandable, the true intent of the sentence by the Japanese author may have been lost as a result of making that somewhat necessary change in the translated version. This is where sacrifices need to be made. In my opinion, I think that these sacrifices should be taken. A translated version of an original Japanese text is never going to be completely like the original. Ideally, translators should consider the rhythm of the original when translating, but I think that it is important to understand when to deviate whether it be just a little or perhaps a considerable change. While translating the last two texts, I did find myself unconsciously trying to improve upon the original, and it is quite difficult to not go wild with it. As time passes, it is a given that things, such as diction, become outdated. As long as straying away from the original does not vastly affect the narrative, I believe that it is perfectly fine to make intuitive "sacrifices" while translating.

-June